BoxRec

Both British supermiddle weight world champs. For you who had the better opposition?

I don't think there's a lot in it.

At this point beating Groves is means less than beating Woodhall, Reid or Bika, and much less than Kessler or Hopkins

No doubt in my mind that Froch has by far the better resume, but Calzaghe would have absolutely dominated Froch if they ever fought.

Froch for me.

Calzaghe.

Froch needs to fight and beat Hopkins to even compare. People said Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him but look at him now.

If they ever met, Joe wins every road, he'd make Froch look out of his depth.

Calzaghe was the better overall fighter but Froch clearly overall has the better resume IMO.

Coco wrote:At this point beating Groves is means less than beating Woodhall, Reid or Bika, and much less than Kessler or Hopkins

Groves would of knocked Woodall out and would of had and would have a very good chance against the other two.

Groves has still got some work to do to prove himself, mate. He's lost twice to a Carl Froch who is past his best. Who has he beaten beyond the prospect stage other than a geriatric road warrior? Time will tell with him.

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe.

Froch needs to fight and beat Hopkins to even compare. People said Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him but look at him now.

If they ever met, Joe wins every road, he'd make Froch look out of his depth.

Froch beat Pascal who sparked Dawson whom utterly dominated Hopkins.

Froch also knocked out Jermain Taylor, again who beat Hopkins twice.

So following your logic, Calzaghe needs to defeat Taylor, Pascal and Dawson to even compare to Froch.

Hope this helps.

Sklar wrote:Groves has still got some work to do to prove himself, mate. He's lost twice to a Carl Froch who is past his best. Who has he beaten beyond the prospect stage other than a geriatric road warrior? Time will tell with him.

Who says Froch is past his best though? I mean beyond the age next to his name. He doesnt really look any worse to me from 5 or so years ago.

G0mez wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe.

Froch needs to fight and beat Hopkins to even compare. People said Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him but look at him now.

If they ever met, Joe wins every road, he'd make Froch look out of his depth.

Froch beat Pascal who sparked Dawson whom utterly dominated Hopkins.

Froch also knocked out Jermain Taylor, again who beat Hopkins twice.

So following your logic, Calzaghe needs to defeat Taylor, Pascal and Dawson to even compare to Froch.

Hope this helps.

Calzaghe beat an unbeaten Kessler when he was at his best. He beat Jeff Lacey who was hailed as the new Tyson and started favourite for the fight even though Joe had been world Champion for years such was Lacy's reputation. Lacy was never the same fighter after Calzaghe beat him.

OK Roy Jones was past his best but Calzaghe did completely dominate the fight.

You are right though you can't really judge by A beat B, the world doesn't work like that. Pascal is a good example, a good fighter who beat Taylor but Pascal is no great.

Ian1973 wrote:

G0mez wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe.

Froch needs to fight and beat Hopkins to even compare. People said Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him but look at him now.

If they ever met, Joe wins every road, he'd make Froch look out of his depth.

Froch beat Pascal who sparked Dawson whom utterly dominated Hopkins.

Froch also knocked out Jermain Taylor, again who beat Hopkins twice.

So following your logic, Calzaghe needs to defeat Taylor, Pascal and Dawson to even compare to Froch.

Hope this helps.

Calzaghe beat an unbeaten Kessler when he was at his best. He beat Jeff Lacey who was hailed as the new Tyson and started favourite for the fight even though Joe had been world Champion for years such was Lacy's reputation. Lacy was never the same fighter after Calzaghe beat him.

OK Roy Jones was past his best but Calzaghe did completely dominate the fight.

You are right though you can't really judge by A beat B, the world doesn't work like that. Pascal is a good example, a good fighter who beat Taylor but Pascal is no great.

Lacy was shown to be a complete hype job though to be fair.

G0mez wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe.

Froch needs to fight and beat Hopkins to even compare. People said Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him but look at him now.

If they ever met, Joe wins every road, he'd make Froch look out of his depth.

Froch beat Pascal who sparked Dawson whom utterly dominated Hopkins.

Froch also knocked out Jermain Taylor, again who beat Hopkins twice.

So following your logic, Calzaghe needs to defeat Taylor, Pascal and Dawson to even compare to Froch.

Hope this helps.

Come on dude. Pascal didn't 'spark' Dawson. Hopkins also beat Pascal. And Pavlik beat Jermain Taylor twice but was battered by Hopkins. Hopkins would give Carl fits even now.

For the record, I can't see Froch beating a prime Calzaghe, but Froch easily has the better resume.

Calzaghe: Hopkins, Kessler, Lacy, Eubank, Reid, Bika, old RJJ, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell

Froch: Kessler, Groves, Bute, Abraham, Johnson, Pascal, Dirrell, Taylor, even the loss to Ward counts because he actually got in the ring with the guy... The dude has fought EVERYONE.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:No doubt in my mind that Froch has by far the better resume, but Calzaghe would have absolutely dominated Froch if they ever fought.

This is the only logical answer to the poll

="columbo"





Calzaghe beat an unbeaten Kessler when he was at his best. He beat Jeff Lacey who was hailed as the new Tyson and started favourite for the fight even though Joe had been world Champion for years such was Lacy's reputation. Lacy was never the same fighter after Calzaghe beat him.

OK Roy Jones was past his best but Calzaghe did completely dominate the fight.

You are right though you can't really judge by A beat B, the world doesn't work like that. Pascal is a good example, a good fighter who beat Taylor but Pascal is no great.

Lacy was shown to be a complete hype job though to be fair.[/quote]


Maybe but maybe that was the damage of the Calzaghe fight? The Americans were crazy about him prior to the fight.

I concede that Lacy on a record doesn't now look as good as Taylor (for example).

columbo wrote:

Coco wrote:At this point beating Groves is means less than beating Woodhall, Reid or Bika, and much less than Kessler or Hopkins

Groves would of knocked Woodall out and would of had and would have a very good chance against the other two.

think you're doing Richie Woodhall a bit of a disservice there. Groves is kinda young and not as seasoned as guys like Froch and Woodhall too imo. Might win but I wouldn't assume he'd KO him.

Calzaghe stepped up and fought a defensive/offensive genius in Bernard Hopkins - Froch stepped up and fought an offensive/defensive master in Andre Ward and lost, and lost well.

I'd probably say that based on his win against Hopkins and his handling of Mikkel Kessler, that Calzaghe just pips him. Yes Froch had a good victory over Kessler too, but I understand he took a bit of a shellacking himself in the process, whereas Calzaghe didn't even get his hair messed up.

Froch has the better resume, and Cazaghe seems a little jealous of it tbh.

Pascal, Taylor, Kessler, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, bute, groves easily outstrips reid, lacy, Kessler and Hopkins (I don't even count that version of rjj).

Carls always walked the walk, joe didn't for years and years.

But joe would prob win if they had fought.

clopixolacuphase wrote:

G0mez wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe.

Froch needs to fight and beat Hopkins to even compare. People said Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him but look at him now.

If they ever met, Joe wins every road, he'd make Froch look out of his depth.

Froch beat Pascal who sparked Dawson whom utterly dominated Hopkins.

Froch also knocked out Jermain Taylor, again who beat Hopkins twice.

So following your logic, Calzaghe needs to defeat Taylor, Pascal and Dawson to even compare to Froch.

Hope this helps.

Come on dude. Pascal didn't 'spark' Dawson. Hopkins also beat Pascal. And Pavlik beat Jermain Taylor twice but was battered by Hopkins. Hopkins would give Carl fits even now.

For the record, I can't see Froch beating a prime Calzaghe, but Froch easily has the better resume.

Calzaghe: Hopkins, Kessler, Lacy, Eubank, Reid, Bika, old RJJ, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell

Froch: Kessler, Groves, Bute, Abraham, Johnson, Pascal, Dirrell, Taylor, even the loss to Ward counts because he actually got in the ring with the guy... The dude has fought EVERYONE.

So did Calzaghe though at the time. Who did he not fight that he should've?

I always find that people gloss over the actual fight that Calzaghe had with Hopkins. Its always a case of 'Joe beat Hopkins' and officially, this is true. In reality? Hopkins had as much claim to the win that night as Joe with Calzaghe barely landing anything of note. Similar case with the Reid fight, the scouser had a real claim for the win that night.

Dirrell is often thrown in Froch's face as a fight that was so close it could have gone either way or that Froch got given a gift.

Imagine two losses on Joes record to Reid and Hopkins. Legacy severely dented. A loss to Dirrell wouldn't massively impact on Froch's legacy IMO.

I think Froch has the better resume and have thought that for quite some time now. Always said that Calzaghe would have beaten him in a fight between the two though.

columbo wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

G0mez wrote:
Froch beat Pascal who sparked Dawson whom utterly dominated Hopkins.

Froch also knocked out Jermain Taylor, again who beat Hopkins twice.

So following your logic, Calzaghe needs to defeat Taylor, Pascal and Dawson to even compare to Froch.

Hope this helps.

Calzaghe beat an unbeaten Kessler when he was at his best. He beat Jeff Lacey who was hailed as the new Tyson and started favourite for the fight even though Joe had been world Champion for years such was Lacy's reputation. Lacy was never the same fighter after Calzaghe beat him.

OK Roy Jones was past his best but Calzaghe did completely dominate the fight.

You are right though you can't really judge by A beat B, the world doesn't work like that. Pascal is a good example, a good fighter who beat Taylor but Pascal is no great.

Lacy was shown to be a complete hype job though to be fair.

If we're calling Lacy a hypejob, then Bute has to be judged by the same standard. As things are, both came over as dangerous opponents, were seen as the favourites, Bute looked like a rabbit in the headlights and you'll struggle to find a better dismantling of a fighter than what Calzaghe did to Lacy. Neither have looked the same since. The two wins are about equal for me.

Ian1973 wrote:
So did Calzaghe though at the time. Who did he not fight that he should've?

Froch.

Ottke.

Glen Johnson.

Roy jones jnr. The real one

That's without really thinking about it.

lillywhite14 wrote:I always find that people gloss over the actual fight that Calzaghe had with Hopkins. Its always a case of 'Joe beat Hopkins' and officially, this is true. In reality? Hopkins had as much claim to the win that night as Joe with Calzaghe barely landing anything of note. Similar case with the Reid fight, the scouser had a real claim for the win that night.

Dirrell is often thrown in Froch's face as a fight that was so close it could have gone either way or that Froch got given a gift.

Imagine two losses on Joes record to Reid and Hopkins. Legacy severely dented. A loss to Dirrell wouldn't massively impact on Froch's legacy IMO.

I think Froch has the better resume and have thought that for quite some time now. Always said that Calzaghe would have beaten him in a fight between the two though.

Don't agree with that at all Calzaghe clearly won both fights IMO. Although there is the odd person that disputes it, I think the general consensus is that both those results were correct.

stevieb_8006 wrote:Froch has the better resume, and Cazaghe seems a little jealous of it tbh.

Pascal, Taylor, Kessler, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, bute, groves easily outstrips reid, lacy, Kessler and Hopkins (I don't even count that version of rjj).

Carls always walked the walk, joe didn't for years and years.

But joe would prob win if they had fought.

You've missed a load of names off Calzaghe's record there, what about Eubank, Mitchell, Brewer and Woodhall?

n1ebf wrote:

columbo wrote:

Coco wrote:At this point beating Groves is means less than beating Woodhall, Reid or Bika, and much less than Kessler or Hopkins

Groves would of knocked Woodall out and would of had and would have a very good chance against the other two.

think you're doing Richie Woodhall a bit of a disservice there. Groves is kinda young and not as seasoned as guys like Froch and Woodhall too imo. Might win but I wouldn't assume he'd KO him.

Calzaghe stepped up and fought a defensive/offensive genius in Bernard Hopkins - Froch stepped up and fought an offensive/defensive master in Andre Ward and lost, and lost well.

I'd probably say that based on his win against Hopkins and his handling of Mikkel Kessler, that Calzaghe just pips him. Yes Froch had a good victory over Kessler too, but I understand he took a bit of a shellacking himself in the process, whereas Calzaghe didn't even get his hair messed up.

The Ward that beat Froch would have beat the Hopkins that Joe fought though, with a bit to spare too. So hardly the same thing. Hopkins arguably won against Joe too. If we want to compare Hopkins to a Froch opponent, then Dirrell comes to mind. Controversial decision etc etc

Kessler claims he was injured going in to his fight with Joe. As for it being an easy nights work? Nope. Joe pulled away over the last 4/5 rounds but before that Kessler was neck and neck and posing a few problems. The scorecard was typically British.
On a head to head though, Calzaghe did a better job on Kessler than Froch though, no doubt.